This will not stop until serious, long-lasting financial damage is done to the individuals/organizations responsible for these actions, and those operating under color of law spend some time in jail with their “friends”.

That this hasn’t happened yet is indirect proof that the entire justice system is in cahoots protecting one another.

Waiting for the law and order apologists to respond...coming up in 3...2...1...

6
posted on 05/04/2013 7:04:19 AM PDT
by The Antiyuppie
("When small men cast long shadows, then it is v?ery late in the day.")

Television violence? We'd stay up just for the nightly edition of 12 Star Final on the San Antonio television stations. We saw more gore and guts than one saw at a Clint Eastwood spaghetti western and this was between 1963-67.

Someone made a good point. If the police arrested Jason for “interference with police” after they would not stop recording then. Isn’t the deletion of that video tampering with evidence at the scene of a crime?

It seems anytime an officer destroys any video of ayn arrest they are committing a crime themselves. They have just destroyed evidence in the person being arrested case regardless if it favors the police or the arrested.

If Jason and his sisters charges are not kicked out of court they should fight any verdict on the grounds that the police destroyed exculpatory evidence at the scene of the arrest.

If this type of case is pushed into a court then the police will have to stop destroying property when they make an arrest.

Where are the cops can do no wrong crowd, a/k/a jack boot lickers? This thread has had 7 responses and no has come on telling us how much we hate cops ; how brave the cops were,; and how much the woman deserved what she got.

“Someone made a good point. If the police arrested Jason for interference with police after they would not stop recording then. Isnt the deletion of that video tampering with evidence at the scene of a crime?”

If those guys who threw out the fireworks and the laptop after the bombing get jail time for it, then these police need to do some time also. The evidence that it was done deliberately and with prior knowledge is even more clear in the case described in this post. It’s that simple. Any other result is additional evidence of the system protecting itself.

So, who protects us from the system? Answer: Us.

12
posted on 05/04/2013 7:17:06 AM PDT
by The Antiyuppie
("When small men cast long shadows, then it is v?ery late in the day.")

This kinda of thing has been on the increase in all major metro areas. Officers are trained to use overwhelming force...problem is, every situation does not justify overwhelming force.

Officers are accountable just like everyone else. We had several officers here in Houston indicted for using force well beyond what was needed...caught on video.

Yea, the burglar was/is a thug and deserved a good @$$ woopin, but not on the ground, several officers holding them down, handcuffed and each officer taking turns kicking the guy in the head and torso.

Just cause they are cops, doesn't give them the right to beat the crap out of someone after gaining control over them.

Ever since the so-called War On Drugs (WOD) and, now, the War On Terror (WOT) — actually more like the War On The Bill of Rights) — began, our civilian cops have been undergoing MILITARY training. The authorities gentle it down with the prefix Para but those dynamic entry teams would be more at home in Baghdad than Boston. (Well, unless they hit John Kerrys front door at 3 am, Boston might not be a good example.) Watch Dallas SWAT for a dose of how it works.

I have long thought that that sort of activity within the ranks of otherwise civilian law enforcement was a push by those with an agenda to bypass posse comitatus for purposes BEYOND the WOD/WOT and other currently criminal behavior.

That the mass of that shrinking minority  the American citizen (thank you Mr. Open Borders Bush and Total Amnesty Obama)  has NOT objected to this erosion of personal liberty does NOT bode well for the future of freedom here.

I wonder what sort of body count of innocent grandmothers and others it will take before folks begin to grasp that they might be more at risk from the cops than the criminals and bring the situation back under control?

My Uncle Bob (R.I.P.) would be horrified.

My Uncle Bob was a 30-year veteran of a police force in suburban Cleveland. He was best man at my wedding in 1962. He served in an era when MOST cops embodied the now frequently hollow motto emblazoned on police units all over this country: TO PROTECT AND SERVE.

The last 10 years of his career were spent as the chief Juvenile Detective in his department. When he died, a number of the young men whose lives he had touched years before came forward to tell how his timely and sometimes tough-love intervention turned them around.

I know that many officers STILL try to live that creed today. I also know that there are officers out there who, despite the rulings by the Supremes that they have no obligation to specific, individual citizens (see Warren v. DC for some fascinating and frightening reading on that), would stand between one of us and a bullet  and have.

Having said that, I must also lament that SOME cops are cowboys. Too many are simply power driven megalomaniacs who would have dropped on the OTHER side of the law had their lives drifted a degree or two off the course they did take.

I believe this to be especially true of far too many federal law enforcement types who have allowed their egos and hubris to become as bloated as the bureaucratic federal behemoth they serve. (See footnote below). Their mandate is no longer to  protect and serve the citizens who pay their salaries: It is to crush any meaningful resistance to a growing body of procedures, regulations and policies  too frequently enforced under severely tortured interpretations of the underlying legislative enactments (if any)  and often put in place by executive fiat. The massively abused SEIZURE statutes  laws the author of which now seeks to RESCIND! — spring to mind.

And one cannot but help to wonder how the clear to anyone with half a brain criminality of the Clintons and now Obama  and their subsequent avoidance of any penalty  has played into the problem? There now seems to be a bright line between the easy, highly flexible, slap-on-the-wrist law for the rich and powerful and the rigidly enforced law against even the tiniest victimless crimes committed by those of us further down the food chain. Does anyone in his right mind believe THAT will NOT engender added disrespect for ALL law?

Could those things be a large part of the problem in some of the highly disturbing  and DEADLY (on BOTH sides)  confrontations we have witnessed over the past decade or so? Gordon Kahl, Ruby Ridge, OK City, Waco, Beck This list WILL lengthen and wed all better pray that WE will be spared.

Roman historian Tacitus warned that one could tell the level of corruption in a society by the NUMBER of its laws. Anyone doubt the level of corruption here?
Am I the only one who thinks were long overdue a serious review of the NUMBERS of laws under which we are now forced to exist  and which are increasingly used not to assure our safety or well-being, but to COMMAND AND CONTROL us and KEEP US IN LINE.

Only the most tyrannical and power-crazed members of law enforcement could possibly object to that.

The modern counterparts of my uncle would not object.

It is THEY, after all, who are most likely to catch that bullet  probably fired by someone who has symbolically screamed to himself IM MAD AS HELL AND IM NOT GONNA TAKE IT ANY MORE — referred to earlier when they sally forth to serve that flimsy warrant or make that bogus arrest.

Dick Bachert (1999) Updated 12/2010

FOOTNOTE:
At a cocktail party back in the late 80’s, I struck up a chat with a fellow — his name was Joe M. — whom I’d met on one or two previous events. After my first encounter, Joe’s neighbor and my boss at the time told me that Joe was an alcoholic who had just retired from 25 years with the IRS. Needless to say, I was guarded in expressing my political views to Joe as the IRS had helped my dad into an early grave in 1977 — at age 59 over an estate matter. Joe was pretty deep into his cups at the function in question and began telling IRS “war stories.” Most had to do with clear cases of criminal conduct by not very nice people. Joe — who was a few years short of 60 — sounded to me like someone who enjoyed helping getting really bad people off the street and I asked why he’d retired early. He told me that what he called “the service” had changed for the worse. Then I asked him about the new people coming in. He shook his head, actually teared up and said that many of them were “really bad.” I pressed. “Really bad” meant incompetent? “No — DANGEROUS,” he responded “they like to hurt people.”

I assume you think things would have turned out better in this case if the woman or her brother had been armed. I wonder how you think that would work.

Had either of them drawn a weapon, would the cops just have decided to walk away? Or is it more likely things would have immediately escalated to a shootout? What do cops do when a suspect draws a weapon? What should they do?

2A rights are very important for providing the people a method of collective armed defense against oppression. It is more or less by definition useless as a means for individuals to protect themselves against the same. If these two people had been armed, and "won" a shootout with the cops, would they (being in the moral right) just be able to go on their way? Or would more and more force have been called in by LEO until they were subdued or dead?

IOW, sometimes armed resistance against the cops might be morally in the right, but the chance of it turning out well for the resisters (as in being able to go on with their lives) is essentially nil.

The question you need to ask yourself before getting into armed confrontation with cops, "Am I willing to die on this hill?" Because it is just about certain you will either die or spend a very long time indeed in prison.

I will gladly agree some hills are worth dying on, but is this the one that justifies such a sacrifice?

None of this has any bearing on whether the cops acted stupidly in this case or not, although it should be pointed out that this article is not "the truth," it is one side's version of the story.

BTW, looked up some info about the Park Police. Sound like armed security guard types, with all their wannabee problems.

I agree with you, and actions like this reinforce the idea that the police are just another gang wearing spiffy uniforms. It’s too bad they don’t realize this and police their own ranks even tougher than the police the Sheeple.

Something stirring in the air, a victory?
A time-bomb ticking to explode,
Something passive, something not.
Billy clubs out, call the S.W.A.T.
Rabid dogs without a leash,
is this how you keep the peace?
You want riots? Wear your riot gear.
You want violence?
Then shoot some tear gas in the air.

It is written on your badge,
‘To serve and protect’,
it seemed you only served yourselves,
protecting your own neck.
Controlling with fear, menacing and threatening.
You want my respect?
You better start respecting me.

Go and get your riot gear,
swing your girlie all around,
we’ll be dancing on the cinders,
as the town is burning down.
Swing her around, burn it all down.

Something smelled of power tripping,
crowd control was rank.
Tear gas everyone downtown,
what you did really stank.
Legislation, never made you judge and jury.
Martial law now,
beat the kids down with no worries.

26
posted on 05/04/2013 7:50:07 AM PDT
by OneWingedShark
(Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)

I think you’re missing his point in the statement “One good reason the government should not own all the guns.”.

Not that these people necessarily, or others in a similar situation, would have benefited from shooting at the cops, but that try to imagine how widespread this sort of thing would be if all police knew for a fact that the general populace was completely disarmed? IOW, the deterrent factor.

Disarm the people and (in today’s environment and government) law enforcement will turn into nothing more than oppression; it’s going in that direction already. When there is no concern that the law abiding people can rise up and fight back, thuggery and brutality will be the order of the day. Been demonstrated over and over in history. And happening today in America.

"There now seems to be a bright line between the easy, highly flexible, slap-on-the-wrist law for the rich and powerful and the rigidly enforced law against even the tiniest victimless crimes committed by those of us further down the food chain. Does anyone in his right mind believe THAT will NOT engender added disrespect for ALL law?"

So true. In our reality-TV driven society, we get a glimpse. COPS being filmed (on their best behavior), it's shocking how any tiny infraction is met with the maximum force. I don't blame the officers as much as I blame the system.

The system decided that metrics is somehow beneficial to keeping the peace, so the officers justify their paycheck and promotion opportunities with tickets and arrests, not stopping to think how much it costs society to respond (in finance - we have to look at the fully burdened cost of products and services... that means from idea to service in the field). Those with the least resources are slapped the hardest because they can't fight the system. They in turn become more desperate. It's like hospitals who charge the uninsured significantly more then the insured because the uninsured do not have advocates with scores of lawyers who negotiate down the cost for their members.

28
posted on 05/04/2013 8:04:24 AM PDT
by uncommonsense
(Conservatives believe what they see; Liberals see what they believe.)

>> Where are the cops can do no wrong crowd, a/k/a jack boot lickers?
>> This thread has had 7 responses and no has come on telling us how much we hate cops; how brave the cops were; and how much the woman deserved what she got.
>
> which is a change from maybe a year or 2 ago.

It’s quite frankly amazing how quick that changed, isn’t it?

37
posted on 05/04/2013 8:53:01 AM PDT
by OneWingedShark
(Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)

A widespread revolution by armed American citizens against an oppressive government might succeed.

I wish my father were still here, been gone 10 years. A 3 war Marine with knowledge of the principles of guerrilla warfare/resistance. I'd like to get his perspective on things here now.

I'm thinking, and this is simple opinion only as I have no claim to special knowledge of this area, that in a country like the US, as large and geographically diverse as it is, that a "revolution" or something of that order would take the form of covert resistance. Sabotage, hit & run, tactics of that nature. Death by a thousand pinpricks. Wouldn't have to be big stuff, just a lot and spread out. Like chasing horseflies. The occupying forces can never keep up with it.

I sincerely hope things never get to that stage. OTOH, the left never stops at a certain point. They never get enough. They only stop taking liberties when they are stopped.

Just cause they are cops, doesn't give them the right to beat the crap out of someone after gaining control over them.

It does give them the right to lose their jobs however. The problem is when you inculcate an environment of overwhelming force and the officer is always right you attract sadistic bullies. Such psychopathic tendencies need to be carefully weeded from the system or the public will loose its trust in Authority. Not punishing these well documented excesses taints the entire police force.

47
posted on 05/04/2013 10:29:50 AM PDT
by American in Israel
(A wise man's heart directs him to the right, but the foolish mans heart directs him toward the left.)

In any such revolution it is likely at least 1/3 of Americans would be on the side of the government, not to mention most of the police, cops, etc. Since the government in power would presumably be such by winning an election, its supporters might be a considerable majority.

"Winning" such a civil war would require crushing that 1/3, which would more or less by definition mean using methods that would pretty much obviate the principles of freedom and democracy the revolutionaries are fighting for. How does one run a revolution for democratic principles against a majority?

IOW, any such war would not be a sectional war, as our "Civil War" was, but a more normal type of ideological civil war, with all the horrors of atrocity and counter-actrocity those entail.

Not only are those officers responsible for turning the Mexican ladies’ truck and the other guy’s truck into Swiss cheese not going to be criminally charged, they will be promoted later down the road. From the police pont of view, the only mistakes that were made is that all three victims survived.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.